Exclusion zone to Parliament Protests

Exclusion zone to Parliament protests By Ben Leapman Home Affairs Correspondent, Evening Standard 15 June 2005

Political protests are to be curbed in a half-mile "exclusion zone" around Parliament, it emerged today.

A map of the zone, drawn up by ministers and slipped out in the Commons, shows that it takes in the whole of Whitehall and the London Eye.

Inside the zone, spontaneous demonstrations, even by a lone protester will be banned.

Police will be able to set stringent conditions on those who apply in advance, such as a halfhour time limit and a ban on placards and loudhailers. Anyone who fails to comply will face arrest. Critics denounced the measure as a heavy-handed attack on free speech.

The measure will take full effect on 1 August. It is being introduced under a section of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, passed by Parliament this year. It was originally intended to evict long-term peace campaigner Brian Haw from Parliament Square, and prevent mass protests like the pro-hunt demonstration last September.

Ministers claimed a ban on demonstrations outside Parliament was needed to allow MPs and peers free access in and out of the building.

But the Act gave ministers the power to draw up an exclusion zone anywhere up to one kilometre from the Palace of Westminster. The map of the zone reveals Home Secretary Charles Clarke has used his new power to the full extent. The only significant site left out of the zone is Trafalgar Square after ministers accepted that it is a traditional venue for demonstrations.

Critics pointed out that a protest at the London Eye could not possibly obstruct entry to Parliament. The Eye has been targeted in the past by Fathers 4 Justice protesters. The Liberal Democrats today demanded an emergency Commons debate, claiming the new powers went beyond what Parliament had intended.

Lib- Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "Preventing people from freely voicing their opinions outside Parliament was bad enough. What possible justification can there be for banning spontaneous-demonstrations across such a wide area?

"Once again, this Government has shown itself ready to play fast and loose with hard won British freedoms."

Are you prepared to accept this?

THE NEW LAW WILL AFFECT EVERYBODY'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH

On 1 July the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act comes into force bringing with it draconian restrictions on the freedom to protest in a large area around Parliament. Permission to protest near any government building must now be given by the Metropolitan Commissioner who can impose severe, ridiculous and possibly unworkable restrictions on any protest that is allowed to continue.

This amounts to the police making political decisions around our fundamental rights of freedom of association and expression. It is part of a wider attack on the freedom to protest over the past few years. The SOCP Act also changes harassment and trespass laws in a way that could make protest anyway very difficult.

During the parliamentary debate earlier this year the government assured critics of the proposals that they would consult on the extent of the designated area to which these restrictions will apply. Yet, with the exclusion of Trafalgar Square, the recently announced designated area is as wide as it could be - the government have taken the opportunity to effectively stop protest outside any government building. Opposition MPs are now expressing concern about the extent of these measures so this is an opportunity to build on this concern.

These restrictions are contrary to long established laws and traditions in this country and this Government's own Human Rights Act.

www.parliament-square.org.uk

British MEPs meeting with the British Prime Minister

British MEPs meeting with the British Prime Minister
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005

I understand that you are due to meet the Prime Minister on Thursday and that you will have the opportunity to question him.

May I suggest that one of the questions that you should ask is whether or not he accepts that had the British been asked, in a referendum, for their opinion on the EU Constitution the majority vote would have been against it.

That being the case the next question is surely whether or not he accepts that anything that goes beyond what the people thought they voted for in the 1975 Referendum, i.e. Free Trade, is totally unacceptable.

Thirdly does the Prime Minister not agree that having in May promised a referendum, regardless, he said, of how the French voted, "and that is a Government promise", the British people are now entitled to an early opportunity to express their views on whether they actually wish to remain in the European Union.

I have very little doubt that, in spite of recent setbacks, the salami slicing process of completing European integration will continue. The question is whether you, as one of our elected representatives, will oppose or join with those who, having been thwarted in their efforts to introduce centralising measures by the front door, will now seek to impose them by the back door.

I look forward to receiving your comments and in the meantime trust that you will not miss the forthcoming opportunity to put the Prime Minister on the spot.

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Gill
Hon. Chairman
The Freedom Association

www.tfa.net">

French 'Non' Campaigners Show Solidarity

Monsieur le Premier ministre,
Ne privez pas les peuples d’Europe du droit de dire non !

Lettre ouverte à M. Tony Blair
par Francis Choisel et Bernard Chalumeau
Président et secrétaire général
de l’Alliance pour la Souveraineté de la France

Monsieur le Premier ministre,

Le 1er juillet prochain, vous allez présider l’Union européenne. C’est à ce titre, plus qu’à celui de chef du gouvernement britannique, que nous nous adressons aujourd’hui à vous.

Au cours des six prochains mois, en effet, après le rejet du projet de traité constitutionnel européen par les peuples français et néerlandais, à une large majorité (55% et 62%) et avec une forte participation électorale, vous aurez à trouver le compromis nécessaire entre les vingt-cinq Etats-membres sur la conduite à tenir face à ces deux votes négatifs.

Lors du prochain Conseil européen de Bruxelles, vous aurez ainsi, à côté du Premier ministre luxembourgeois, actuel président de ce Conseil, du président de la Commission européenne, du président de la République française et du chef du gouvernement néerlandais, un rôle majeur à jouer.

En prenant la décision de « suspendre » le référendum que vous vous êtes engagé auprès du peuple britannique à organiser avant toute ratification, vous semblez considérer que la campagne de Hollande et la bataille de France ont définitivement scellé le destin du projet de constitution européenne, et qu’une bataille d’Angleterre n’est en conséquence plus nécessaire.

Au plan du droit international et des règles de l’Union européenne, c’est assurément le cas. Mais la décision qu’aura à prendre le Conseil européen à ce sujet n’est pas seulement juridique. Elle est d’abord politique. Elle n’est pas seulement britannique, elle est européenne.

Evidemment, il ne peut être question de faire voter à nouveau les citoyens français et néerlandais, pas plus que d’aménager pour eux, comme pour votre pays, pour le Danemark ou pour l’Irlande, un statut d’exception, qui ne conviendrait pas à deux pays fondateurs et qui seraient incompatibles avec l’esprit même du texte constitutionnel. Il est impossible d’ignorer la sanction de ces deux grands pays, pays amis de l’Angleterre de surcroît.

Pour autant, comme l’ont indiqué le président de la Commission européenne et plusieurs chefs de gouvernement, il ne serait pas convenable d’interrompre dès maintenant de manière intempestive le processus démocratique de consultation des peuples.

On ne peut annuler les référendums déjà programmés dans divers pays, dont le vôtre. On ne peut ainsi museler les citoyens et les empêcher d’exprimer clairement leur sentiment sur ce texte en même temps que sur le fonctionnement actuel de l’Union. On ne peut leur ôter la possibilité de dire « non », eux aussi. Le processus de ratification doit donc se poursuivre.

Mais il faut aussi tenir compte d’un fait majeur révélé par les deux référendum français et néerlandais et qu’avaient déjà démontré les référendums danois, irlandais, suédois ou norvégiens : il existe une contradiction grave entre le sentiment exprimé, presque unanimement, par les parlements de ces pays et la décision rendue, à une large majorité, par les citoyens, consultés directement. Est-on sûr qu’il n’en est pas ainsi dans d’autres Etats membres ? Le doute est ainsi jeté non seulement sur les ratifications qui restent à opérer par la voie parlementaire mais également sur celles qui l’ont déjà été de cette manière.

Comme président de l’Union européenne, il vous appartiendra donc de demander que les pays, tels que l’Allemagne, qui n’ont pas consulté leur peuple sur cette question qui engage leur destin comme nation et celui de l’Europe tout entière, fassent confirmer, ou infirmer, par référendum la décision de leur parlement.

Cette initiative ne pourra que recevoir le soutien de notre président, Jacques Chirac. Il a, aujourd’hui le devoir moral de porter sur la scène internationale les aspirations de son peuple, telles qu’elles se sont exprimées le 29 mai. Les Français, en effet, en votant « non », n’ont pas pensé qu’à eux. Ils ne se sont pas « repliés sur eux-mêmes» ; ils n’ont pas « rejeté les autres», loin de là. Bien au contraire, ils ont voulu lancer un grand mouvement de rénovation dans toute l’Europe. Notre Président demande d’ailleurs la poursuite du processus de ratification.

Les autres gouvernements ne pourront pas plus s’opposer à cette manière de sortir de la crise car elle est fondée sur des bases authentiquement démocratiques et éminemment conformes à l’esprit européen.

Ensuite, et ensuite seulement, chaque peuple ayant parlé, l’Union européenne pourra repartir sur des bases réellement nouvelles.

Alors, les gouvernements auront un mandat clair pour corriger les vices avérés de cette Europe bureaucratique, centralisatrice et niveleuse qui bride les énergies, entrave les initiatives, réglemente, réprimande et sanctionne.

Monsieur le Premier ministre, l’honneur de notre Gouvernement a été de nous donner la parole. Nous, Français, serions fiers l’avoir parlé au nom de tous les peuples d’Europe, et tout particulièrement du peuple britannique, si le processus de ratification s’arrêtait demain. Mais nous serions plus fiers encore d’avoir permis qu’ils soient tous consultés, en leur âme et conscience. Et le peuple britannique le serait tout autant si vous en preniez l’initiative.

Laissez, en ce nouveau printemps des peuples, éclore toutes les fleurs du « non » !

Nous vous adressons, monsieur le Premier minsitre, l’expression de notre bien sincère considération.

No Campaign off on International Tour of Duty

Monday 13th June 2005

No Campaign off on International Tour of Duty

The People's No Campaign's 'Message from the People,' is leaving for Brussels today from the North Shields Ferry Terminal.

The message is plain and simple:

"Don't you Dare...Mr. Blair!
The British voters must have their vote:
Oui ou Non?
A cancelled vote in Britain is not an option"

The message is being delivered via an AdVan and the poster can be seen here

The vehicle is to be present for three days in Brussels to coincide with the meeting of the 25 Heads of State at the European Council on 16th and 17th June where the ratification process for the European Constitution is to be discussed and decided.
We are not prepared to accept Blair's 'postponement' and we are demanding an opportunity to have a referendum.

Already the French campaign which delivered their historic 'Non' is showing solidarity and preparing to support the statement below:

STATEMENT

"WE DEMAND that the British Government keeps its promise and holds a referendum on the European Constitution.

The voice of the people must be heard: the British must not be denied their say."

Photo and Media Opportunity:
1.30pm North Shields Ferry Terminal
Interviews with Colin Moran and Neil Herron of The People's No Campaign

ENDS

Notes:
1. The People's No Campaign is a non / cross-party coalition demanding a referendum on our relationship with the EU and actively campaigning for a No vote.

2. The team behind the campaign have biggest ever referendum success against the Government in the North East elected assembly referendum.

3. North East based Gorilla Media have the contract for the supply of the vehicle and the poster.

CONTACTS:
Neil Herron
0191 565 7143 (Direct Line)
07776202045 (Mobile)

mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk

The People's No Campaign
0845 147 2006
www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk

'No' Campaign Goes to Brussels

The People's NO Campaign Goes to Brussels.
Click Here to view images.

Three Euro MPs back referendum go-ahead

The Journal
Friday 10th June 2005

The North-based campaign against the European Constitution has claimed the support of the region’s three MEPs in calling for a UK referendum to go ahead.
The vote in this country on the treaty has been shelved after it was rejected in polls in France and the Netherlands.

But the people’s No Campaign – led by Sunderland activist Neil Herron – is calling for Britain still to be given a say on the document.
Yesterday, Mr Herron seized on comments by the MEPs as evidence a debate should still take place.

And he challenged the three to a public debate in the region on the constitution.

It came after Liberal Democrat Euro-MP Fiona Hall said: “I would like us to go ahead with the referendum. It would enable us at long last to have an intelligent and informed debate about Europe.”

Labour MEP Stephen Hughes also said this week: “Unless a real campaign begins there is real danger that our referendum campaign will be about – just as it was in France – everything except the content of the constitution.”

And conservative MEP Martin Callanan said; “I have no problem with a referendum especially if it stops Blair introducing some of the provisions of the constitution by the back door.

“I would look forward to joining Fiona, Stephen and Neil on a platform in the North-East to put the issue before the public.”Mr Herron said: “It is great to see both Stephen and Fiona along with Martin joining in our call for a referendum to go ahead.

"Oh Mr. Alexander...Don't Try and Scare Us. The Genie is out of the bottle!"

'IT WOULD BE WRONG TO TURN AWAY FROM EUROPE NOW' - DOUGLAS ALEXANDER

EDITED TRANSCRIPT OF AN OPPOSITION DEBATE, IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, BY EUROPE MINISTER DOUGLAS ALEXANDER, ON WEDNESDAY 8 JUNE

Mr Speaker may I begin, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, by extending his apologies to the House for his absence today. My Rt. Hon Friend is in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

On this side of the House we recognise that with over half our trade with Europe, more than 3 million jobs linked directly or indirectly to exports to Europe and 750,000 British-based companies trading within the EU, Britain's national interest is and should continue to be advanced by our engagement with the European Union.

And we further recognise that on challenges as broad and diverse as environmental degradation and global poverty, Europe working together can not only extend Britain's influence, but be a powerful and positive force for good, as we saw when EU Development Ministers agreed, last month, a new collective target for Overseas Development Assistance of 0.56% of EU GNI by 2010. And, just yesterday, EU Finance Ministers endorsed the commitment by the fifteen richer EU Member States to reach the UN overseas development assistance international target of 0.7% by 2015 and the agreement by the other ten Member States to work towards 0.33% on the same timetable. This will more than double EU aid in less than ten years.

So, in my remarks today, I will first reiterate the Government's response to the results of the French and Dutch referenda on the EU Constitutional Treaty. I will then address the wider case for economic reform within Europe and reaffirm that this Government will not act in a way which undermines the European Union's continuing contribution to peace, stability and prosperity in Europe.

Constitutional Treaty

Mr Speaker, this debate takes place just a week before the customary debate preceding the European Council meeting on 16 June and two days after the Foreign Secretary addressed the House, on its return from the Whitsun recess, on the Government's response to the referenda results last week in France and the Netherlands.

The House has been and remains divided on the merits of the Constitutional Treaty. The Government believes it represents a sensible set of rules for the enlarged European Union including a reduction in the size of the European Commission; a much better voting system(which benefits the UK); an end to the six-month rotating Presidency, with replacement by a full time President of the Council and team Presidencies and better arrangements for involving national Parliaments in EU legislation.

The Treaty, of course, requires ratification by every EU Member State before it can come into force. To date 10 Member States have approved the Treaty and, as the House is aware, two Member States - France and the Netherlands - have, in recent days, rejected it in referenda.

That is the situation which leaves the constitutional treaty in real difficulty. But it is a problem which the EU as a whole has to discuss and then decide upon.

The Constitutional Treaty was a subject of detailed negotiation between Member States, was agreed by all European leaders and is the property of the European Union as a whole. It is not, therefore, as the opposition suggests, for the UK alone to decide the future of the Treaty. Rather it is for European leaders to reach conclusions on how to deal with the situation which has now arisen in light of the French and Dutch referenda results.

There is now the need for further discussions with EU partners and further decisions from EU Governments. The first opportunity for collective discussion will take place at the end of next week, when Heads of State and Government meet in the European Council, before which there will be a further debate in this House.

Mr Speaker,

That is the context in which the Government has decided not to set a date for the Second Reading of the European Union Bill until the consequences of French and Dutch decisions, and their effect on the process of ratification of the Treaty, are clarified.

As the Government has already informed the House, we reserve completely the right to bring the Bill back for consideration if circumstances change, but we see no point in doing so at the moment.

While other European leaders have, over the past week, stated that their ratification process will continue, the fact remains that the Treaty cannot come into force until all Member States have ratified it. That is the situation of uncertainty which European leaders will have to discuss next week. And that is why, in this situation, we have decided, for the time being, not to proceed with Parliamentary discussion of the Bill.

Globalisation and Economic Reform

Mr Speaker,

Amidst all the current headlines and debates on the Constitutional Treaty it is all too easy to lose sight of the underlying reality that there is an economic transformation taking place of even greater long-term significance than the political transformation achieved by enlargement, and that is globalisation. Europe needs to adapt to the changing balance of global economic activity and the rise of fast-growing emerging economies, notably China and India. Rapid technological change, global capital flows and the global sourcing of products are leading to an increasingly competitive international market for goods, services and investment. The most successful economies will be those that can adapt quickly to change, promoting enterprise, productivity and innovation.

This process of change challenges Europe economically,socially and politically. It demands concerted action to strengthen key drivers of growth such as levels of employment. It calls for greater flexibility in product, labour and capital markets to ensure that Europe's businesses and individuals are equipped to adapt to economic change and take advantage of new opportunities when they arise. Structural reform, which promotes flexibility and fairness together, is the key to success in the modern global economy.

That is why advancing the economic reform agenda will be a key priority for the UK when we assume the Presidency on 1 July. As this House knows well the UK has long advocated economic reform in the EU. But, as the Kok Report confirmed, we risk falling far short of the goals set by EU leaders in Lisbon 5 years ago to improve EU competitiveness by 2010. With 19 million Europeans out of work, the main task for those of us who believe in social Europe is to get Europe back to work.

Vital to this is the task of tackling regulation. Twelve European countries, including the UK, have signed up to a better regulation agenda. European legislation can bring down barriers and improve competitiveness in Europe. But it needs to be high-quality legislation, properly tested for its potential costs and benefits. So, during our Presidency, we intend to focus on improving the policy-making process through better consultation and assessment of the impact of proposed legislation on business and on the EU's international competitiveness. Our fundamental goal is to reduce the volume and complexity of EU legislation and to review the impact and outcomes of existing legislation.

We want to make progress on the Services Directive. The Directive has a strong focus on better regulation and aims to cut excessive bureaucracy which prevents businesses offering services across borders or opening premises in other Member States. Extending the internal market to the services sector which represents around 70% of EU GDP, will be of enormous benefit to business and consumers alike.

In the financial services sector our focus will be on completing the Financial Services Action Plan in a way that protects and promotes the UK's and the EU's competitiveness. We will also take forward the Commission's excellent Green Paper on the Post Financial Services Action Plan Agenda to ensure better implementation and enforcement of measures affecting the financial sector, the use of alternatives to regulation and a clearer recognition of the global nature of financial services.

Mr Speaker, strengthening economic co-operation between the EU and the US is also a priority for the UK. We will want to build on the work now under way in the context of this month's EU/US Summit and demonstrate clear progress in breaking down barriers to trade and investment in key areas.

Future Financing

Mr Speaker, the European Council will, next week, be looking at the EU Budget for the period 2007 to 2013. That debate is part of the wider debate about how Europe responds to globalisation. The question is: where can EU spending bring the greatest added value? We think the answer is clear. It is in reducing the income gap between old and new Member States. It is in providing Europe with the means to strengthen Research and Development in the most competitive sectors of the global economy. We are convinced we can do that within a Budget of 1% of EU GNI.

There is a lot of talk across Europe about the UK rebate. The rebate is there because of the particularly low level of UK receipts from the EU and our above-average contributions to the EU Budget. That situation hasn't changed since the Fontainebleau Summit in 1984 and won't change in the next decade either. That is why the rebate remains justified and why, if necessary, we will use the veto, as is our right, to defend our national interest.

A Global Europe

Mr Speaker, as I have said the EU's future prosperity depends on being able to compete in the global world. That requires strong economic performance. But it also means having strong political partnerships across the globe.

During our Presidency we will take forward work to build up the EU's partnerships with its neighbours in the Middle East and North Africa, and in Eastern Europe, not least with those countries aspiring to EU membership.

Last December's European Council agreed to open accession negotiations with Turkey on 3 October this year. The prospect of EU membership has been one of the most significant spurs to political and economic reform in Turkey. A stable and prosperous Turkey, demonstrating that Islam, democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law are fully compatible, would have a huge impact on regional peace and stability.

During our Presidency the UK will also lead the EU's efforts to help tackle poverty in Africa, in line with our objectives for the UK Presidency of the G8 and the recommendations of the Commission for Africa.

Part of that will be pressing ahead with the reform of the CAP. The next big issue is reform of the archaic sugar regime, which will fall to our Presidency. Getting this right is an important part of delivering agreement at the WTO Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in December which will bring greater development through freer and fairer trade

Mr Speaker, we will work also with our EU partners to ensure that the EU continues to play a leading role in reinvigorating the international negotiations on climate change. This will include engaging countries like China and India. We will explore options for a post - Kyoto strategy and try to develop stronger co-operation and real dialogue with key international partners on ways of securing low-cost emissions reductions.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, the challenges facing the EU both within its borders and in the wider world are considerable. But these challenges can be met.

Together the EU accounts for a quarter of world GDP, a third of world trade, 50% of the UN budget and 55% of global development aid.

It would be wrong and wholly contrary to turn away from Europe now.

One in 8 members of the UN is a member of the EU. So the EU has a vital role to play in international security and global development. The EU has long been a beacon of peace, democracy and prosperity. The combined skills, capabilities and knowledge of the 25 EU Member States can be a powerful force to extend those values in today's world.

For the security and well-being, not only of our own citizens but of all our neighbours and partners, this Government will work to ensure that it remains so.

Press Release..."Unlikely Bedfellows."

From left: Fiona Hall MEP, Stephen Hughes MEP, Martin Callanan MEP and Neil Herron Director of The Peoples NO Campaign.

Press Release

The People's No Campaign

1pm 9th June 2005

"Unlikely Bedfellows."

Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative MEPs Join The People's No Campaign's Calls for a Referendum

Stephen Hughes, the Labour MEP, Fiona Hall, the newly elected Liberal Democrat MEP and Conservative MEP Martin Callanan all for the North East, have joined in with The People's No Campaign's calls for the Government to hold a referendum on the European Constitution. Regardless of the decision at the European Council next week, all are in favour of having a full and frank debate about our relationship with the European Union. We will create the platform for that debate and we fully expect the three North East MEP's to attend to make their case.

Stephen Hughes (MEP Labour) said that there needed to be a proper campaign and debate on the constitution, including a referendum.

He said: "Unless a real campaign begins there is a real danger that our referendum campaign will be about - just as it was in France - everything except the content of the constitution."

Fiona Hall (MEP Lib Dem) said: "I would like us to go ahead with the British referendum on the Constitution. It would enable us at long last to have an intelligent and informed debate about Europe."

Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan, states, " I have no problem with a referendum especially if it stops Blair introducing some of the provisions of the constitution by the back door. I would very much look forward to joining Fiona, Stephen and Neil on a platform in the North East to put the issue before the public."

The People's No Campaign spokesman, Neil Herron states, " It is great to see both Stephen and Fiona along with Martin joining in our call for a referendum to go ahead. It is also important, and they are all in agreement, that we must have the debate about our relationship with the European Union despite Blair running scared. We will therefore be arranging a public meeting in the North East at a mutually convenient time where we can have our own referendum debate and where Stephen and Fiona can make the case for the EU and the case against made by Martin and Neil."

Time and location to be confirmed.

Time and location to be confirmed.
ENDS

Notes to Editors:

1. The People's No Campaign is a non / cross-party coalition demanding a referendum on our relationship with the EU and actively campaigning for a No vote.

2. The team behind the campaign have biggest ever referendum success against the Government in the North East elected assembly referendum.

3. Websites of the three MEP's are http://www.stephenhughesmep.org/ and http://www.fionahall.org.uk/ and http://www.martincallanan.com/

CONTACTS:

Neil Herron
0191 565 7143 (Direct Line)
07776202045 (Mobile)

The People's No Campaign
0845 147 2006

Press Release ....The People's No Campaign

Press Release

The People's No Campaign

1pm 8th June 2005

Never Mind the Back Door...The Front Door's Wide Open!

Our government and the EU is already implementing the constitution, even though two countries have said "no" and we have not yet been given a referendum.

This is one of the reasons why The People's No Campaign continues to demand a referendum.

The question is, 'Are the Conservatives and the "Vote No" campaign now going to join with us in that call?'

While The People's No Campaign have been running with the demand for a referendum emblazoned on the side of an Ad Van round Westminster..."Don't You Dare...Mr. Blair!" ...others are happy to accept the Government line and are content with the 'postponement.'

Yet, both the Conservatives and "Vote No" have clearly stated that if any part of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is implemented, they will demand a referendum.

But, while they are happily watching the cat-flap in the back-door the front door has been left wide open

It is now apparent that EU officials started working on the constitution's proposals shortly after it was written.

They insisted that they should not wait until it was ratified.

In some cases the work has no legal basis and is dubbed preparatory; in others, a special legal basis has been developed so that policies could be specially implemented even before the constitution is approved.

The new developments include a European diplomatic service, a European president, a European foreign minister, a European space policy, a European defence agency, the implementation of the new European charter of fundamental rights by a European fundamental rights agency, and the scrapping of the national veto on immigration and asylum.

EU officials are already setting up the offices of Europes first permanent president, an appointed post established by the constitution to replace the rotating six-month presidency, which is held by Europes elected heads of government.

There is an awful lot of work to set it up: the office and all the support teams, an official said.

We cant just leave it to the last moment."

Neil Herron, Campaign Director of The People's No Campaign states:

" We are not prepared to accept ANY further integration or implementation of any of the contents of the Constitution.

"That is why we have continued throughout to demand a referendum.

"If we are to be denied one on the constitution then we are demanding that we have a full blown grown up debate on our relationship with the European Union.

"We are not prepared to accept Blair and Straw's obfuscation.

"We are acutely aware of their spin tactics including the 'political chaff' thrown up by Alistair Darling with his Sunday announcement of the ridiculous road-charging scheme.

In light of the evidence of parts of the constitution being implemented we look forward to the Conservatives and "Vote No" joining us at the 'front door' in our continued demands for a referendum."

ENDS
Notes to Editors:
1. The People's No Campaign is a non / cross-party coalition demanding a referendum on our relationship with the EU and actively campaigning for a No vote.
2. The team behind the campaign have biggest ever referendum success against the Government in the North East elected assembly referendum.
3. Research and opinion behind "Do we now get a referendum" can be seen here
4. "Don't You Dare ...Mr. Blair!" can be viewed here

CONTACTS:
Neil Herron
0191 565 7143 (Direct Line)
07776202045 (Mobile)

mail@thepeoplesnocampaignco.uk
The People's No Campaign

0845 147 2006

www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
www.thepeoplesnocampaign.blogspot.com
www.eureferendum.blogspot.com

Almunia rejects Italian budget plea

EUOBSERVER - EU monetary affairs commissioner Joaquin Almunia has castaside an eleventh hour plea to salvage Italy's budget deficit case, with the country now facing disciplinary action under the EU's stability and growth pact.

The commission accepted a report on Italy at their Tuesday meeting, which stated that Rome breached the 3 percent budget ceiling in 2003 and 2004, hitting 3.1 percent in both years, while heading for a 3.6 percent deficit in 2005 and 4.6 percent next year.

Joaquin Almunia noted that the deficit is "neither temporary nor exceptional", and said that the commission's economic and finance committee is "likely" to recommend punitive action to European finance ministers at the end of June. "This is the right way ahead", Mr Almunia said.

He added that the letter sent by Mr Siniscalco, which argued that Italy did face special circumstances, holds no water. "According to my first impressions, it will not change our assessment", the commissioner indicated.

The letter said that Italy was the victim of poor statistics regarding fourth quarter 2004 financial results and that the commission's report did not take into account its sizeable contribution to the EU kitty, as well as to international peace keeping operations.

Mr Almunia added that he is also "very worried" about the spiralling deficits in Greece and Portugal, as well as expressing concern for overspending in Germany and France.

Mr Almunia pointed out that five out of the ten new member states are currently facing excessive debts.

Ecofin likely to take tough line The commissioner indicated that European finance ministers are predisposed to "implement the stability and growth pact with extreme vigour" in the wake of recent budget rule reforms and amid worries over "the loss of credibility of our fiscal framework". "I am sure that will be the spirit in which the council will look at this", he said.

Mr Almunia also pointed out that there is no correlation between high public spending and economic growth, while urging fiscal consolidation throughout the EU. "Looking at EU members with high growth rates, they somehow have a balance or even a surplus in their national accounts", he said.

'Political Chaff' confuses media radar

Well, they fell for it hook line and sinker...every single one of them.

An ill-thought out Government initiative announced on a Sunday by Alistair Darling?
Perleeeaase!
Road charging took Straw's statement in the House on the Monday off lead story in all the papers and all the media.

Radio 4's Today programme took the lead as well.

Blair out of the country? Of course.

These things do not happen by accident.
You have to look past the 'political chaff' and not fall for it. These guys in the Labour spin machine are only 'experts' because the press and media allow them to be.
They know how the game is played.

Also, the press and media will continue to use 'establishment' campaigns mirroring the Conservative Party line.
It's safe and easily handled. It's not contentious.

If you have ever watched an under-9's football match the same logic applies with everyone on the pitch (except the two goalies) within 10 yards of the ball.

We must all learn the skill of stepping back outside the game to see the big picture.

We must also expand the art of bypassing the mainstream media to get the message out at grassroots level.

Expose the transparent 'spin' agenda in the local press letters pages.
It is only transparent however, when it is pointed out to everyone.Forward any information to your contacts.
Become active.

Keep up the fight.

You registered with the campaign yet? You forwarded our details to your address book yet?
We must stand and work together.
Remember. There are more of us than them ;-)
mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk

How Europe Stands On The Constitution

Party Lines

The Journal, Jun 8 2005
By Zoe Hughes

Training has been the hot topic of discussion among politicians and their followers in the North-East this week - especially the need for some to get into a serious training routine sooner rather than later.

Sunderland metric martyr Neil Herron kicked it all off at the weekend when he took part in a regional triathlon with only one week's preparation behind him. Completing the 800m swim, 20km bike ride and 6km run in just under two hours, he admitted he was glad to have finished the race at all after pulling his hamstring while out campaigning against the EU Constitution.

Limping to the finish lane, he said afterwards it was amazing what beer and bravado could do for a man, adding: "I think this is going to be followed by three weeks of rest and recuperation." He was joined though by Hartlepool MP Iain Wright who, as The Journal has previously revealed, has agreed to do the Great North Run for a local charity.

With the general election out of the way, Mr Wright said this week there was little excuse for him to avoid starting a training regime to get him into shape for the big day - and was beginning by giving up alcohol.

Explaining his action plan, the MP was immediately complimented by colleagues on his apparent loss of weight to which he merely grinned: "It's the corsets."

EU enlargement at a crossroads after French and Dutch No

EU OBSERVER
By Elitsa Vucheva

BRUSSELS - The uncertain political climate created by the French and Dutch rejections of the EU Constitution is leading to fears that the continued enlargement of the bloc could be affected.

Fear of further enlargement was cited among the reasons voters in both France and the Netherlands gave for turning the treaty down.

Lining up to join the bloc are Bulgaria and Romania, due to join in 2007, and Turkey due to open talks on 3 October, while the Western Balkans also hope to start accession talks within the next few years.

But while politicians in all these countries claim that the double No will not influence their path to the EU, analysts are less optimistic.

"The populations' fears [during the French and Dutch referendums] were related to enlargement, and the politicians cannot ignore that", Gergana Noutcheva, a Bulgarian research fellow at the Brussels-based Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), told the EUobserver.

It is not in member states' interest to push enlargement further, as "it ispolitically difficult right now", she added.

And Aurore Wanlin, from the London-based Centre for European Reform (CER), added that "we are more likely to see unilateral nationalism and astagnation of EU integration in the upcoming years", as the EU is lacking the political leaders able to get the Union out of the current crisis.

No danger for Bulgaria and Romania? One likely effect is that the EU is going to make sure it appears much tougher on future EU members.

Already, the enlargement commissioner, Olli Rehn, has said the Commission is going to send Sofia and Bucharest warning letters as they are lagging behind on reforms, and both countries face having their full membership delayed by one year if they do not live up to their reform promises.

Mr Rehn's spokesperson said that the fact the letters were sent should not be linked to the French and Dutch No, but they do take on extra political significance as the letters were announced the day after the Dutch referendum.

"It is indeed part of the procedure, but it is strange that it happens just after the referendums; maybe Mr Rehn feels that the political climate isgetting more complicated", said Ms Noutcheva.

But the biggest obstacle in Bulgaria and Romania's path to membership may lie with member states ratification of their accession treaties. With ominous sounds coming from the opposition Christian Democrats in Germany ­who may come into power in September ­ the mood could swing towards a no in the German parliament.

What direction for Turkey?
Turkey also has a big question mark hanging over it. While membership talks will probably be opened on 3 October as promised, countries like Germany,which may have a conservative government by then, will seek to slow the process down as much as possible.

Theoretically the start of talks should not be delayed if Ankara implements all of the requested reforms.

"But then again, one can choose to be lax with Turkey [as regards thereforms], or on the contrary be always more rigorous and impose new demands", Francoise de la Serre, recently retired analyst of Paris-based Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Internationales, pointed out.

Finally, even if Turkey does make it through the negotiation process, at the other end of it, it will have to face French voters, who have been promised the right to a referendum on Turkish EU membership.

French voters are generally opposed to Ankara entering the bloc, and this opposition was one of the main arguments of French No campaigners before the referendum in the country.

The Balkans: in the middle of nowhere The Western Balkans are also likely to suffer, with most countries in the region still taking their first steps on the EU accession path.

"Currently, the EU cannot manage enlargement to 30-35 countries, it can barely manage 25. It should first shape its own policy, then enlarge", said John Palmer, Political director of the Brussels-based European Policy Centre.

But cutting short on EU enlargement may be dangerous for these countries.

The prospect of EU membership has been an essential stimulus for the countries of the region to implement democratic reforms, as they sometimes need to be externally motivated in order to go forward, said Ms Noutcheva.

Ms Wanlin expressed worries that stopping the process may lead to slower democratic reforms in the region as well.

Part of the solution, according to the CER's analyst, lies in a proper debate within the EU on "why enlargement is necessary".

"Don't You Dare...Mr. Blair!" Massive Coverage

The People's No Campaign...Mobile Advertising Hoarding in Parliament Square
Report From the Front Line
6th June
by Neil Herron

The 'Don't You Dare... Mr. Blair!" mobile hoarding proved popular with the press and media as well as the general public in and around the Westminster area.

Picture of the van click here

As Jack Straw made his statement to the House 'postponing' the second reading of the Constitution Referendum Bill we were being interviewed by German ARD TV.
It still appears as though we are getting more coverage in other countries than we are by the BBC. The German TV crew have spent so much time with us that I am expecting cult status equivalent to that of Baywatch's David Hasselhof...and you never know, I may be asked to sing when they knock down the Byker Wall.

The day had gone well with interviews with Channel 4 and NBC News and ITN and BBC gathering footage of the vehicle which has had exposure on The Six O' Clock News and Newsnight.
Reuters and various picture agencies were also present.During the day we managed to confront a number of europhiles as we 'loitered with intent' on College Green, Westminster.

Lord Kinnock was the first. I spotted him walking past our van which was parked up in Abingdon Street."Oi, Kinnock.Nice to see you. I hope you don't want to try and run away from the debate like Blair," I said.
"You're that guy from Sunderland, nice to see you again. It was Brussels last time, wasn't it?" he remarked.
He stated that the Treaty was dead but agreed that we should have a full debate and the public should be informed about our relationship with the EU and be allowed a referendum on the 'direction' we need to go.
He left saying, "If that means we have to leave the EU, then so be it."

Next was Baroness Shirley Williams, who shuffled along with an overnight bag after being interviewed by one of the news crews.
"Baroness Williams," crooned Colin Moran of the No Campaign."It's a pleasure to meet you. Can I just ask you a question? Do you think it is acceptable for us to be governed by twenty five unelected Commissioners?"
Visibly uncomfortable at having to engage a member of the public she spluttered and stumbled. Not the usual confident politician.
"Surely it is time for the British public to have a full 'grown-up' debate regarding our relationship with the European Union?"
"Yes, yes I agree. It must be put to the people," and she scurried off in a great hurry...in the wrong direction.
Embarrassed, she then turned round to go back to the Lords looking like a rather confused 'bag lady.'

We walked past the entrance of the Commons as the van went on another loop of Parliament Square and literally bumped into the pink-tied Sir Menzies Campbell as he attempted to hail a taxi.
Too late.
He had missed his chance.
He too was 'collared.'
"Sir Menzies," Moran opened, "How do you think Jack Straw's statement went?"
"Fine, fine," he said desperately attempting to avoid eye contact.
Moran came back. "Do you think it is acceptable that we are going to be denied the debate on our relationship with the European Union? After all, we are the people,you know."
"You were all asked in 1975," Campbell came back.
"Ah but there was no Parliament then, and we weren't told it would have supremacy," said Moran.
"Yes there was," Sir Menzies mistakenly replied.
"The Parliament, Sir Menzies, was set up in 1979, four years after we agreed to a Common Market."
"Taxi, taxi."
A swift body swerve and dive into the back of the black cab brought relief for Sir Menzies Campbell.

Polite confrontation by the public exposes their weaknesses. It exposes the deceit. They cannot talk their way out as they can in the controlled environment and protocols of TV and radio studios. The interviewers and journalists rarely go in for the kill...their careers depend on repeat visits.
The key to the success of what we are going to do with the People's No Campaign is to get people challenging their elected representatives.
They are uncomfortable with a well-informed member of the public a few feet away.
The game's up and they know it.
The strategy is to stop them from running away and hiding in the bunker.

Our campaign will be confrontational and we will do the things that the 'establishment' campaigns will not.We will however, conduct ourselves with good manners and observe the necessary protocols but we will not accept flannel, lies and spin.

The last one of the day was the BBC's Andrew Marr. Our van was back at College Green as he did the Six O' Clock News broadcast with the Palace of Westminster as the backdrop. As he finished he began walking back to Millbank.Moran went over to politely introduce himself, but at the same time another film crew, who appeared to be either Spanish or Portuguese, turned to film the van. Andrew Marr looked at Colin, looked at the van, saw the film crew and perhaps thought it was a set-up...his jaw dropped and he appeared visibly startled...and he ran. He ran past the van like a whippet back to Millbank.

So, The People's No Campaign, just two weeks old, had 'arrived' and made its mark. The campaign is growing by the day are more and more people are signing up. They like our no nonsense style. They know we are not 'establishment' and we are not looking for power or reward. We are just the people and we want our say.

Next stop Brussels for the European Council meeting on the 16th June...perhaps with a van, perhaps with a balloon, perhaps with a boat but most certainly with a message from the people...stop running Tony.
This project goes nowhere until you put it to the people...and get our express consent.

Vote on Europe shelved by UK

Vote on Europe shelved by UK
The Journal, Jun 7 2005
By Zoe Hughes

The Government has postponed a referendum on the European Union constitution despite mounting pressure from North-East campaigners for the vote to go ahead.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw yesterday said there was "no point" in pursuing plans for a referendum on the treaty in the wake of its rejection by Holland and France.

However, Sunderland metric martyr Neil Herron has launched a campaign demanding a debate on the issue - warning Tony Blair was "running scared" of listening to the public. "How does the Prime Minister know what the people want if he doesn't go ahead with this referendum?" he challenged yesterday, just as Mr Straw made his announcement to the Commons.

"We must not leave the situation like this. It is important that every country is allowed to give its opinion on the constitution and it would be an outrage if the British people were denied this right." Mr Herron is using the national grassroots People's No Campaign to demand a debate on the issue, saying it was vital for people to know the "destination" of the European project.

However, Mr Straw told MPs the EU Council - not the UK - would decide the future of the treaty after the two No votes, admitting that parts of the constitution could still be implemented without a vote.

Announcing that the Government was suspending the British referendum, which had been expected next spring, Mr Straw said the EU faced a "period of difficulty" with a need for further discussions with "EU partners and further decisions from EU governments. We reserve completely the right to bring back the Bill providing for a UK referendum should circumstances change.

But we see no point in proceeding at this moment." Conservatives immediately called for the referendum to be scrapped completely, but the North-East's Liberal Democrat Euro MP Fiona Hall said it was right to implement parts of the constitution, including strengthening the role of national parliaments.

EU blueprint 'not totally dead'

The Journal
June 7 2005

EU blueprint 'not totally dead'

Prime Minister Tony Blair has signalled that some elements of the troubled European constitution must be salvaged if the EU is to function properly in the future.

Despite the Government's decision to respond to the French and Dutch 'no' votes by postponing indefinitely the legislation which would pave the way for the UK's own referendum on the document, Mr Blair indicated that the blueprint for managing the expanded EU is not totally a dead letter.

And in an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Blair appeared to offer an olive branch to France and Germany, acknowledging that the economic reform being championed by Britain could not fully dismantle the welfare systems cherished in Paris and Berlin.

In his interview with the FT, Mr Blair suggested that once Europe's peoples could see that its leaders were taking decisive action to tackle fundamental political and economic issues, then the question of the EU's management structures could be addressed again.

Mr Blair said: "I'm not saying I've suddenly woken up and decided the constitution is the wrong thing for Europe to do. It's a perfectly sensible way forward. And at some point Europe is going to have to adopt rules. You can't have a six-month rotating presidency, it's impossible to do that."

If Europe begins the debate on its economic future and achieves some consensus "you will find that people will then give us permission to take Europe forward in what is a necessary set of new rules for Europe. But if what we do is simply stand up and say well we are just carrying on regardless, I think people will rebel against that."

On economic reform, Mr Blair sought to assuage concerns that Britain is seeking to impose an Anglo-Saxon free markets model on her European neighbours.

Mr Blair said: "I don't believe that Europe should relinquish the social model. We should have a strong social model, but it has got to be one for today's world."

The Prime Minister was also asked about the argument over Britain's EU budget rebate. Mr Blair said: "The rebate is going to remain and I don't think anybody disputes that."

But he was not specific about the level at which it would be calculated - it is currently worth a little over £3 billion a year.

INTERVENTION BY LORD STODDART OF SWINDON DURING A HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE ON THE GOVERNMENT’S STATEMENT ON THE EU CONSITUTIONAL TREATY - 6.6.05

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Howe!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it seems, having listened to the debate so far, that we want to change the rules mid-stream.

What this Statement should have said was that the constitutional treaty requires ratification by every one of the member states, now 25, before it can come into force. In the last week, however, as the House and country are well aware, in referenda the electors in France voted "No" by 55 per cent to 45 per cent and in the Netherlands by 62 per cent to 38 per cent. The treaty is therefore dead. It is dead.

The European Union Bill will be withdrawn and will not be reintroduced. That is what the Statement should have said under the existing rules and the law of the European Union. Since it has not said that, could I ask the Government whether they will now seek the opinion of the British people by immediately introducing a simple Bill to have a referendum, certainly by October, so that the views of the British people can be tested and they can give their opinion, which will help the Government in their further negotiations.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, no, we will not be introducing any such Bill, for the reasons that I gave in the Statement.

Parliamentary Sketch

THE TIMES
Parliamentary Sketch

Straw breaks his own record on opaqueness in clear obfuscation.
By Ann Treneman

JACK STRAW is a man who thrives in murk. He demonstrated this when, in the throes of what may have been a middle-age crisis, he threw away his little round spectacles. Since then he has had trouble admitting seeing things that are right in front of him. This is a man who shook the hand of Robert Mugabe only because it was too dark in the room to see.

Perhaps because of this, the Foreign Secretary is very fond of telling us that things are clear and plain. Yesterday, as he told the Commons what had been decided about the referendum on the EU constitution, almost everything was clear and plain. This is always a bad sign. Gradually it seeped out that the Government had decided not to make a decision on a referendum or the status of the treaty.

Mr Straw exceeded even his own opaqueness record. If he were an octopus, the blue black ink would have been swirling round him. By the end of his non-statement, the Foreign Secretary was almost completely obscured, though periodically a bit of him would emerge. His love of confusion means he usually elicits only polite giggles. Yesterday there was nothing polite about the Tory guffaws.

It was Liam Fox's task to penetrate the murk. Dr Fox has enjoyed some publicity in the Sunday papers after a particularly refreshed evening in Paris with some students. I don't think he was drinking any vodka and tonics yesterday but it was certainly refreshing to watch as he tackled the vexed question of whether the EU constitutional treaty was dead.

"I may no longer practise medicine but I can tell a corpse when I see one," he cried. Labour MPs started pointing to Dr Fox himself, who ignored them. And this constitution is a case for the morgue if ever I saw one. This is aDEAD constitution.

Up in the peers gallery were Tony Benn (despite being very much not a peer),Lord Tebbit, and the pro-European Baroness Williams of Crosby. If only thought bubbles were compulsory. Down below, Dr Fox was on the brink of exploding with outrage. And what is the response from our Government? he cried. Is it to be bold and give a clear direction? No, it is and I quote, We see no point in proceeding at this moment. What does that mean? Do they want to proceed at another moment or soon or never? Or are they waiting for a lead from the people of Luxembourg?

By now we could all see the treaty, lying inert on the floor. It certainly looked dead. But, in politics, the dead are often merely resting. Dennis Skinner wanted to make sure that this was not the case. He faced Mr Straw,who seemed to shrink back as Mr Skinner shook a finger at him. Will you tell Chirac and Schröder we are not going down the road they are preaching? Send a copy of Monty Python's dead parrot sketch. It is deceased, it is kaput, it is no more.

Whatever Mr Straw thinks, he wasn't telling us, but at least he didn't say that the treaty was only stunned.

UK under pressure over constitution referendum

UK under pressure over constitution referendum
By Honor Mahony

London is set to come under the spotlight today (6 June) as politicians around Europe watch to see whether it will freeze its plans to hold a referendum on the constitution.

Foreign secretary Jack Straw is to address parliament at 14.15 GMT and is expected to postpone Britain's planned referendum, effectively putting a halt to the bloc's constitution ratification process.

If London does take this route, it will widen the rift which has opened between itself and Germany and France since the double rejection of the constitution last week.

Both French president Jacques Chirac and the German chancellor Gerhard Schroder over the weekend urged the ratification process to continue, despite the strong French and Dutch votes against the document.

But Britain has reacted coolly to this call.

"We have set out our position and we believe that it is necessary to have a period of reflection leading up to the discussions at the council of ministers on June 16th", a No. 10 spokeswoman said.

An EU response on what to do next is not expected until EU leaders meet at the end of next week.

96.6% of Germans would vote against the treaty However, polls in Denmark and the Czech Republic - both planning to have referendums - show that support for the constitution has dropped since the double No last week, making it unlikely that these two countries could win a referendum.

On top of this, in Luxembourg, one of the bloc's most pro-European states, the number of those planning to say No to the treaty in the Duchy's referendum on 10 July has also risen, prompting prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker to say he will resign if the constitution is rejected.

The domino effect effect also appears to be working retroactively. Germany's mass-selling Bild newspaper on Saturday wrote that a poll of 390,694 readers showed that 96.6 percent would vote against the constitution - although German parliament approved it overwhelmingly last month.

Meanwhile, the Dutch are drawing the consequences of their rejection of the treaty last Wednesday (1 June). The Dutch government on Friday said that ratification in other countries can continue but that the Netherlands will not at a later state co-operate in approval of the constitution.

"The Constitutional treaty is over and finished", said prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende, during a a parliamentary debate.

While leaders will discuss the issue on 16-17 June, an extraordinary summit just on the constitution has not been ruled out, according to German media.

Joint Franco-German proposal on EU budget Much will depend on whether there is any progress on the EU budget talks, with many believing that failure to agree on this issue next week will heighten the perception that the Union is in deep crisis.

Following their meeting over the weekend, President Chirac and Chancellor Schroder agreed to work on a joint proposal on the so-called financial perspective for 2007-2013.

But they also upped the pressure on Mr Blair to make concessions on the British rebate which currently amounts to some E:4.6bn a year, and is set to rise to over E:7bn a year in 2007.

"Without calling any country by name, the chancellor made it clear that everyone must be prepared to shift their position in order to get a deal", said Mr Schroder's spokesperson over the weekend.

Mandelson urges Blair to stay on as PM so he can sort out Europe

Mandelson urges Blair to stay on as PM so he can sort out Europe
By Brendan Carlin, Political Correspondent and David Rennie in Brussels

Peter Mandelson risked a new row with Gordon Brown yesterday by urging Tony Blair to stay on as Prime Minister to sort out Europe's constitutional crisis.

In an intervention that will cloud Mr Brown's hopes of a quick succession, Mr Mandelson, one of Mr Blair's closest allies and now Britain's European Commissioner, suggested the Prime Minister should continue "for the next two to three years" now that French and Dutch referendums had rejected the EU constitution.

The comments came as No 10 cold-shouldered a joint attempt by Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, and Jacques Chirac, the French president, to press on with the ratification of the constitutional treaty in other EU states despite the referendum results.

Following talks in Berlin between the French and German leaders, MrChirac's spokesman, Jerome Bonnafont, made clear that countries such as Britain that are planning referendums on the constitution should go ahead. "One country cannot decide on its own the fate of a treaty negotiated and signed by 25 states," he said. "Each member state must be able to express itself in its turn."

A Downing Street spokesman said: "We have set out our position and we believe that it is necessary to have a period of reflection leading up to the discussions at the Council of Ministers on June 16."

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, is today expected to tell the Commons that plans for a British referendum have now been shelved.

The treaty requires ratification by all 25 EU member states to come into force and ministers privately believe that it is pointless to continue with the process.

But as Britain will next month take the presidency of the EU, Mr Straw is expected to leave open the faint possibility that the British referendum could be revived to avoid French and German accusations of killing off the constitution.

Mr Blair's former adviser on Europe, Sir Stephen Wall, said that although the French president had been damaged by his country's No vote, he could still make life difficult. "He's a lame duck but he's rather a vigorous lame duck with a bite," he said.

In particular, Mr Blair is likely to come under renewed pressure to give up Britain's annual £3 billion-a-year rebate.

Spokesmen for Mr Chirac and Mr Schröder have begun a concerted effort to shift the debate away from France's No vote, and on to Britain's multi-billion-pound "rebate" - an issue that unites all other EU governments against London.

French and German officials made clear their intention to cast Britain in the role of EU wrecker, if the UK did not offer to surrender part or all of the rebate, during talks on the next EU budget.

The Franco-German ploy was unveiled on the same day that the European Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, pleaded with EU governments to resist embarking on a mutual "blame game", after the No votes in France and Holland.

But Mr Barroso's message appeared not to have reached Berlin. Aides there said the Franco-German leaders regarded the surrender of the British rebate as a vital "gesture" that Mr Blair would need to offer to create the"spirit of consensus" needed to save Europe.

In a clear reference to the British rebate, a spokesman said Mr Schröder believed: "Every member state must make a gesture", and must not let theEU become dragged down by "national selfishness". The Government is sworn to defend the British rebate, if needs be by vetoing the whole EU budget. But the other 24 EU nations all want to scrap the rebate. At an EU finance ministers meeting scheduled for tomorrow, Mr Brown is expected to give a clear "hands off" signal to his European counterparts.

It had been widely thought that Mr Blair, who announced last year that he would not fight a fourth general election, would step down after Britain's referendum on the EU constitution, regardless of the result.

That vote was originally expected to take place next year.

Mr Mandelson urged the Prime Minister yesterday not to make a "precipitate decision" by declaring the entire treaty dead now. Instead, he hoped the June 16 council of ministers meeting would put the ratification process on hold till the end of they year. Mr Mandelson claimed that such a pause would give Mr Blair a "fresh calling".

"What he's got to do is help other European member states and heads government come to terms with what's happened, understand and realise how Europe's got to move to a different place if it's going to overcome that malaise about Europe that exists among the public," he told ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme.

Mr Mandelson added: "I think he can help do that, so I think that he's got a great contribution to make.

"I would like them to consider whether it is better to preserve the treaty by pushing the pause button now and coming back to it at a later stage, rather than taking a precipitate decision either way," he said.

"I think that the best outcome from June 16 is that people say, 'Look, we need to reflect on this further and we're going to come back to this at the end of the year.' "

House of Lords-Constitution for Europe (Referendum) Bill [HL]

Constitution for Europe (Referendum) Bill [HL]

A
Bill
To
Make provision for a referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for
Europe; and for connected purposes.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Referendum on the proposed Constitution for Europe

(1) The treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (“the Treaty”) shall not be
ratified unless its provisions have been agreed to in a referendum.

(2) A referendum shall be held within four months of the publication of the final
text of the Treaty.

2 Referendum question

(1) The question to be asked in a referendum held under section 1 is:
“Should the United Kingdom ratify the Treaty establishing a
Constitution for Europe?”

(2) The following statement must precede the question on the ballot paper:

“Parliament has decided that the Government should not ratify the
Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe unless the people of the
United Kingdom have agreed in a referendum that it should do so.”

3 Arrangements for the referendum

(1) The referendum shall be conducted in accordance with Part 7 of the Political
Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41).

(2) No local or general elections shall be held within two months of the date of a
referendum on the Constitution for Europe.

HL Bill 99

______________________________________________________________

4 Expenditure
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act;

(b) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums which under any other
Act are payable out of money so provided.

5 Short title
This Act may be cited as the Constitution for Europe (Referendum) Act 2004.

Britain votes to stay in Europe
1. Tonight Saturday BBC-2 20.25
2. As below here, Sunday - not sure which channel - 19.50 - 00.00

In the week the Netherlands and France voted against the European project, BBC Parliament returns to the halycon days of 1975, when the British people elected to stay in the European Economic Community (EEC).

On the thirtieth anniversary of the last British referendum on Europe the channel re-broadcasts the main programmes from the night.

Over two thirds of Britons said "yes" to the question: "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"

Prime Minister Harold Wilson had weathered a long and testing campaign, opposed by many in the Labour Party and the trade unions - led by the TUC - after promising the referendum at the general election in October 1974.

'Historic decision'

He hailed the result as a "historic decision" which prompted leading opponents, including then Industry Secretary Tony Benn, to accept the choice of the people.

The new Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher had also campaigned to stay in the Common Market, and attributed the positive result to the opposition's support.

Her predecessor Ted Heath was delighted with the result after being the prime minister responsible for taking the UK into the EEC in the first place in 1973.

BBC Parliament will re-show four key programmes from the night including Robin Day's extended interviews with both party leaders.

There is also an opportunity to see a David Dimbleby chaired discussion featuring leading figures from both the pro and anti-EEC campaigns, as well as two hours from the results programme itself.

BBC Parliament's anniversary broadcasts will run from 1950-0000 GMT on Sunday 5 June.

Europe

The Times
EU leaders forced to calm jitters over euro
By Anthony Browne, Brussels Correspondent

THE political crisis that has engulfed the European Union since France and the Netherlands rejected its proposed constitution yesterday threatened to spill over and damage the euro.

Embattled EU financial leaders spent the day defending the currency, dismissing talk of its break-up as absurd. One senior EU official said: Euro notes and coins are for ever, like the euro.

In a symptom of the seriousness of the creeping doubts, Roberto Maroni, the Italian Welfare Minister, had suggested in an interview with La Repubblica that a referendum should be held on bringing back the lira. The euro had proved inadequate in the face of the economic slowdown, the loss of competitiveness and the job crisis, he said.

Wouldn't it be better perhaps to return, temporarily at least, to a system of dual circulation of the euro and lira? He cited Britain as an example of a nation growing and developing by holding on to its own currency.

Although the Italian Government quickly distanced itself from Signor Maroni's views, his comments rattled the currency markets. The euro slumped from about $1.2290 to $1.2231 on his remarks. On Wednesday, the euro fell by about 1.40 cents against the dollar as the Dutch voted on the EU constitution and markets reacted to uncertainties created by France's no vote. That brought the single European currency to an eight-month low of$1.2202.

An economic adviser to José Manuel Barroso, the President of the Commission, gave warning that the situation was dangerous and that some countries would want to leave the currency. For the first time financial markets are speculating that the euro may collapse, by offering variable long-term interest rates on government debt in different eurozone countries. However,Joaquín Almunia, the European Monetary Affairs Commissioner, said: The euro forms part of our landscape. I think nobody is going to succeed in eliminating an achievement that cost us a lot to bring about.

The markets had already been shaken by a newspaper report in Germany that Hans Eichel, the Finance Minister, had attended a meeting to discuss the break-up of the euro. He denied the story.

On Thursday, Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank, dismissed speculation about the end of the euro, calling it totally absurd and complete nonsense.

Many of the countries which joined the euro have suffered economic stagnation and rising unemployment, with people also blaming the currency for rising inflation. Although the German and French economies are stuttering, Italy has plunged into full blown recession.

The euro is vulnerable to a collapse in public support because none of the12 countries that joined it allowed their people to approve the decision in a referendum. Many Dutch used the referendum on the constitution to show their disapproval of the euro, while in Germany polls show 56 per cent of people want to return to the mark.

A report called The Demise of the Euro by the Centre for European Policy Studies, a think-tank funded by the European Commission, admitted that the currency was probably responsible for Italy's economic problems, which it predicted would soon afflict the majority of countries in the eurozone.

Confidence in the euro collapsed in the markets after the French and Dutch referendums, because economists believe that it would make it difficult for governments to co-ordinate action to keep the currency stable. The currency had already been hit by the collapse of the Stability Pact which under pinned it. Eurozone governments are now openly flouting their legal borrowing limits.

Stop lying about the European Union

The Financial Times

If national governments habitually blame interference from Brussels for their economic ills, then it should come as no surprise that electorates eventually believe them. This happened in the UK some time ago and it is happening on the European continent now. The kind of Europe that political leaders such as Gerhard Schroder and Jacques Chirac regularly portray a conspiracy of free-market zealots out to destroy social justice is a Europe that holds few attractions to continental European electorates.

The No votes in France and the Netherlands last week were partially the result of a long history of political misinformation and ritual abuse of European institutions by governments. The cause of many of the EU's present difficulties is persistent dishonesty and misinformation about Europe.

Governments have failed to explain the full implications of large-scale European projects, such as the single market and monetary union. They oversold it, underplayed the risks and hardly talked about the political and economic consequences in any depth. Persistent claims that the single market and the euro would raise economic growth are evidently at odds with the economic reality as perceived, for example, by Dutch voters. Rightly or wrongly, they hold the introduction of the euro responsible for price rises and for the country's poor economic performance. Governments also failed to warn their peoples of the need for domestic reforms. They committed themselves to the stability and growth pact and the Lisbon agenda of economic reforms, and later ignored both.

Governments also misled their electorates about the political and economic consequences of EU enlargement. The political rationale for past and future enlargement - the need to stabilise democracy in eastern Europe - barely surfaced in many national political debates. Governments have also avoided a detailed debate about the economic consequences, while several opposition leaders found EU enlargement an ideal pretext to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment.

Most governments have failed to explain to their electorates what Europe is for, what it should do and what it should not. Few politicians admit publicly that they need the EU to solve problems common to all member states, such as dealing with economic shocks or improving the operations of the single market. And they hate to admit that some of these policies cost money.

Governments need to explain to their electorates what the EU does, in a factual way. There is far too little public information available through the media and national institutions about the EU's day-to-day operations. It is an irony that of all recent EU projects, electorates chose to turn against the constitution, the result of one of the most transparent processes ever undertaken at EU level. It was drafted by a convention that included members of national parliaments and governments and the European parliament. All this suggests that we are witnessing the climax of a process that went wrong some while ago.

It is a further irony that at a time when more and more policies are conducted at EU level, the political debate has remained as national as ever. This is a great pity. There are many political and ideological conflicts that divide Europeans, among them the conflict between supporters of Anglo-Saxon capitalism and their opponents. A greater degree of honesty is not sufficient to overcome these divisions. But it is necessary.

SALUT!

Why I, an ardent Europhile, toast the French and the Dutch for rejecting theBrussels lie machine.
by FRANCIS WHEEN

THIRTY years ago this month, Britons were given their first and - so far -only chance to deliver a verdict on our membership of the EU. Or, as we called it in those days, the Common Market.

I voted 'Yes' with a spring in my step and a song in my heart. I may even have whistled Beethoven's Ode To Joy as I strode cheerfully to the polling station to mark my X for Europe.

What could be more modern, more civilised? I am of the generation that grew up soon after World War II, acutely conscious of the shadow cast across our continent by nationalism.

Almost every European conflict - from the notorious Schleswig-Holsteindispute of the 19th century to the Balkan wars of the 1990s - has been driven by national rivalries.

If only we could create a truly united European federation of some kind, bound together by common interests and common institutions, all this territorial tribalism would cease - or at least find more peaceful ways of expressing itself.

To Eurosceptics and Europhobes this dream was a nightmare. But I found it easy to dismiss their horrified howls. If they railed against loss of sovereignty, I pointed out that national sovereignty is eroded continually, in a hundred different ways, without a chorus of protest.

Whenever a country joins a supranational institution - Nato or the UN, the International Olympic Committee or the' International Whaling Commission -it agrees to pool at least some sovereignty for the greater good.The Eurosceptics' objection to any such dilution seemed to me ultimately anargument for retreating to bed and abandoning all contact with fellow humans.

Bogeyman

The other bogeyman - 'federalism' - could be rebuffed just as easily. If people tried to make my flesh creep with talk of a United States of Europe, I merely drew their attention to another United States. Of course, in the U.S. there have been and always will be tensions between the national and the federal. But after more than two centuries of such tension - even armed conflict, in the American Civil War - the Union has endured and flourished to become the most potent force on the planet, abeacon of liberty and prosperity. Is this an example from which we should recoil?

Hence my instinctive Europhilia. And over the past decade, or so I watched with quiet pleasure as anti-European demagoguery seemed to lose much of its resonance.

When the Daily Mirror marked an England v Germany football match with front-page headlines taken straight from the old war comics of my childhood- 'Achtung! Surrender! For you Fritz, ze Euro '96 championship is over' - it quickly found that it had misjudged its readers.

Such jingoism meant nothing to a younger generation that holidayed in Italy or Spain, that grew up on pasta and pizza, that revered footballers named Zola and Cantona.

The dread word 'Europe' is unlikely to terrify anyone who drinks cappuccino or German lager before driving off in a Fiat to cheer an England team managed by a Swede. European nations are becoming more closely integrated. Not only do I believe this, I welcome it.

Why, then, do I raise a glass of champagne (though not egg-nog - there are limits) to the French and Dutch voters who blew such resounding raspberries at the EU constitution this week?

For too long, people like me made what philosophers call a 'categorymistake'. As pro-Europeans, we automatically defended the entity that called itself 'Europe' in its gradual evolution from a common market to a political and economic union.

When the sceptics complained about its unaccountable and, indeed, corrupt institutions, we could afford to ignored them because we guessed they were insincere. These people would still grumble even if 'Europe' were a model of democratic transparency.

And so, cocooned in our smug complacency, we derided them as Little Englanders. Among ourselves, in the privacy of like-minded seminars and dining tables, we might sometimes lament the 'democratic deficit' and the absurdities of the Common Agricultural Policy. But we knew who the realenemy were - the Europhobes.

Clamour

Not any more. France and the Netherlands were two of the EU's founders, and neither is intrinsically hostile to the European project. Both, for instance, have long since abandoned their own currencies for the euro. Their referendum votes aren't knee jerk Kilroy-Silkery: they don't want to leave the EU altogether.

But they will soon, unless European leaders start heeding the popular clamour. So far, alas, there's no sign of that.

Peter Mandelson's lofty dismissal of the French 'Non' (suggesting that a second referendum could be held) was matched by an astoundingly insouciant performance on BBC2's Newsnight from Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, when he said Brussels' work would continue.

As Jeremy Paxman said, with that familiar lip-curl of disbelief: 'You don't get it, do you?'

This week's devastating votes are, above all, a rejection of men such as Mandelson, Barroso and countless other sleek-suited, well-groomed has-beens whose contempt for the ordinary citizens of Europe can be detected in everyt witch of their nostrils, every pout, every sigh.

Since European Commissioners are usually superannuated politicians in their native countries, you have to keep reminding yourself that in Brussels they are no more than civil servants - unelected, unaccountable and all too often insufferable, as well.

If Britain were ruled by a Prime Minister and Cabinet composed entirely of Whitehall mandarins who never had to throw themselves on the mercy of the electorate, wouldn't we also say 'Non', or 'Nee', or 'Not bloody likely'? Of course we would - and rightly

For too long, the 'political class' of Europe has treated the EU as an agreeable three-star restaurant where they never foot the bill and where hoi polloi are kept out by teams of polite yet ruthless doormen.

It's high time someone told these grandees that there's no such thing as a free dinner - and that if they can't pay their way, then they can bloody well stay behind and do the washing-up.

There's nothing wrong with the European ideal. What's wrong is the arroganceof a political elite who seek to realise it through lies instead of honest debate, who assume it can be imposed from above rather than shaped by the people.

Yet even after this week's emphatic double-whammy, it seems the Eurocrats haven't got the message.

They remind me of the East v German communist leaders whose suppression of a popular uprising in 1953 inspired this riposte by the writer Bertolt Brecht: 'The Secretary of the Writers Union had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee stating that the people had forfeited the confidence of the government and could win it back only by redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?'

Bloated

Well, today, the people have spoken. Europhiles can't wish away this result by saying that the French reasons for rejection were quite different from those in Holland.

Whatever the particular local sentiments which prompted those two votes, the underlying message is clear: Europeans feel disconnected from their institutions, and utterly disenchanted with them.

To carry on discussing further expansion, or a European foreign policy, is putting the cart before the horse - and a very bloated and unresponsive beast it is. None of these schemes will achieve anything without a fundamental reform of the EU's political structure.

Tony Blair's evangelical desire to spread the blessings of democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere may toe admirable, but why not apply it to Europe too? I still don't regret my 'Yes' vote 30 years ago. But I do feel it was obtained under false pretences, as has been every change in the EU from the days of the Common Market onwards. Politicians have lied, lied and lied again about where they are taking us in Europe.

This week's brutal comeuppance was long overdue - which is why, asan ardent European, I'm drinking a toast to the Dutch and French. Gezondheid! Salut! Cheers!

The digested read...The European constitution, in the style of the original

The Guardian...Tuesday May 31, 2005
John Crace

All Citizens shall have inalienable rights, Freedoms and principles to use capital Letters in an arbitrary manner, except where an individual Member State might find them awkward. In such cases, the Member State shall have the Competence to challenge the Competence of the Constitution in the European Court.

Citizens of the Union shall have the right to Move and Reside freely within the territory of the Member States, but only in so far as the Constitution is accorded such Competences; in cases where the principle of Subsidiarity shall apply, the institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of Subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality.

The Union shall have Competence to define and implement a common foreign and Security policy, including the progressive framing of a Common defence policy, except when such a Policy is too contentious for such a common Defence policy to be framed.
The Union shall share Competence with the Member States where the Constitution confers on it a Competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Article 1-13. Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations in cases where the Constitution excludes such Harmonisation. Duh.

The Union shall have exclusive Competence in matters of monetary policy for the Member States whose Currency is the euro; those Member States that insist on keeping their own currency shall be regarded as Off-message Member States and shall be treated accordingly.

The principle of voting by qualified majority, hereby defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least 15 of them and Representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union, will be generally applied as the EU shall not be compromised by minority voices. However, the overarching Principle of Inaction shall be maintained by allowing any Member State a veto on foreign policy, defence and taxation. In any vote over what constitutes an area of veto in which a country has been outvoted, the Member State can take its case to the European Council, though it can still be outvoted there.

The Union shall have an institutional Framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its Objectives and serve its interests and, where possible, those of its Citizens. This institutional framework comprises: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Council for the Processing of Expenses.

The President of the Commission shall lay down guidelines within which the Commission is to work and decide on the Internal organisation of the Commission. The Commission shall be an inclusive body and the President shall have Competence to appoint homophobes and White-collar criminals. There will be 25 Commissioners from November, one for each Member State, though this figure shall be reduced to 18 in five years' Time when the EU is more confident about ignoring the interests and Competences of smaller Member States.

The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising Competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have Primacy over the law of the Member States, though Member States shall be free to ratify their own internment Procedures for Asylum Seekers.

The Institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action. In areas of dispute, the Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment shall contribute to social dialogue.

The Union does not endorse any particular Deity. This does not mean that such a Deity does or does not exist, only that if he or she does exist, then he or she has pan-European Competence.

A Member State which decides to withdraw from the EU shall notify the Council of its intention. The Union shall negotiate an Agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached, the Union shall have the Competence to declare war on that Member State.

You made that last bit up.

The digested read ... digested
Incontinent incompetence from the continent.